Classicide2Announced

Classicide2Announced wrote

I agree with you.

We can easily look at the MANY examples of stateless, classless, communal societies in the past and see how they solved things. But the answer varies based on so many things. (Even under feudalism, the peasants enjoyed a lesser degree of alienation and could manage more of their own local affairs than we can.)

I think anarchism should be seen more as a struggle against the ruling order and less as a perfect map of how run a new society. Also, drawing up this map risks bringing the values of the old society with us into the future.

But at the same time, communism is NOT a new idea no matter what people who subscribe to the faux-futurist brand of Marxism tell you. Communism has been done so many times it's crazy, and those people had to harvest their crops with primitive sythes while we have tractors guided by satellites!

The bourgeoisie can always ask us exactly how we'll run things with a sly smile because they know the mere exposure effect is enough to make people fear changing things. But I don't know anyone who doesn't think they could run their own neighborhood better than a pathetically inept government.

2

Classicide2Announced wrote

We're on the same side.

I don't think Doreen is a bad person for not combing her hair, making money from dog walking, or showing the world that gross-looking living space during the interview.

But I do think fox news choose Doreen so they could associate workers who don't want to labor for their masters with negative stereotypes; and in the minds of the brain-washed public, it worked.

I really don't disagree with you. I think the most powerful aspect of class struggle is the enslaved producers saying "no" and meaning it.

I believe the concept of "work" as we know it will be abolished in a cooperative society.

Oh, and of course you accuse me of ableism for suggesting people should wash their hair once in a while.

0

Classicide2Announced wrote (edited )

"We must fraternize with those who tread upon the liberties of the oppressed, and it is disgusting. You can almost hear the ghosts of capitalist propaganda mocking in your ear: “see how good you have it under capitalism? You could not reach these heights without it. You could not thrive as you so now without capitalism.” Yet the vicious beast of capital also neglects to tell us that we are forced into this position."

Oh, you poor thing!

"One such thing [a problem with social anarchism] being that if I am required to got [sic] to a meeting in order to let my voice heard in the organization, but I have a doctor’s appointment on that day, then my voice will suddenly be excluded."

This is what I hate about this type of idpol. People take problems that apply to everyone and assume they only apply to themselves.

Democracy sucks. It doesn't suck more if you have cystic fibrosis or whatever.

−1

Classicide2Announced wrote

Reply to Fucking socdems by ziq

If you think the State is "justified" (whatever that means) maybe you should consider an ideology that isn't anarchism.

Anarcho-sergeants! Ha! This is proof men can't do anarchism well.

Men and their manly militaries . . .

2

Classicide2Announced wrote

Reply to by !deleted36975

It's not even just capitalism. It's the imperialist supply chains on which a majority of people in the so-called "Western world" depend.

Do these people claim that Congolese workers who mine lithium are just as unethical to eat food from their local farms as a person in the developed world is to buy a new smartphone every year?

I'm not trying to deny that workers are oppressed in all countries. (I remember a person who worked 70 hours per week and barely scraped by expressing pity for people in "sweatshops." Who is really in the "sweatshop," I wanted to ask them.)

But for the love of god, this is not an excuse to just kick your feet up and enjoy economic imperialism with no remorse!!

They might as well be screaming, "Buy more! Damn your conscience! BUY MORE"

3